Hi Birte,
Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am working my way through the open questions/issues, so the next on
> my list is something that Andy mentioned. At the moment, we have the 2
> conditions C1 and C2 that restrict the set of possible answers to a
> finite set of answers for RDF(S) entailment regimes. What these
> conditions don't cover is redundant answers that use different blank
> nodes. E.g.,
> suppose G is
> _:b1 :p :z.
> _:b2 :q :y.
> SG is:
> _:sg1 :p :z.
> _:sg2 :q :y.
> and the BGP of the query is
> ?x :p [] .
> We would get the two solutions
> (x, _:sg1)
> (x, _:sg2)
> because both _:sg1 :p [] and _:sg2 :p [] are well-formed RDF triples
> that are RDF(S) entailed by G (C1) each subject is in the set of terms
> used by the scoping graph and (C2) μ(?x) is a blank node occurring in
> SG. This always results in a finite answer sequence, but the more
> blank nodes we have origianlly, the more redundant answers we get.
>
> Now what I would rather have only (x, _:sg1) as an answer. This could
> be defined by a notion of derivability I think. E.g.,
> Let R be a set of entailment rules for the entailment regime E, then,
> for each triple (s, p, o) in P(BGP), there must be a derivation of (s,
> p, o) from SG by means of R.
> Now I could use, for example, the RDFS entailment rules as suggested
> by ter Horst, and I get what I want because _:sg2 :p [] has no
> derivation.
>
> What I am quite unhappy about is the use of "a set of entailment
> rules" because different systems might want to use different ways of
> deriving consequences and this might be too specific. Any opinions on
> that? Any better suggestion?
>
To add to your discomfort, and be extremely legalistic: the entailement
rules in the RDF Semantics are explicitly stated as 'informative' in the
RDFS document:-(
Ivan
> Birte
>
>
>
>
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf